Xerographica wrote:Admittedly though, because Netflix has so many subscribers, how you spent your own fees would be a drop in the bucket.

Indeed, which is why the amount of sacrifice involved is a number so small it would round down to zero on most calculators, and is therefore functionally equivalent to zero.

But TIME sacrificed does not, and time = money.

But this is even more true when you shop at the grocery store. But, because everybody spends their limited money on the groceries that most closely match their preferences, the supply closely matches everybody's preferences.

If I buy 5 oranges for five dollars, or don't buy five oranges for five dollars, does it affect my personal supply of oranges? Does it affect my personal supply of money?

If I "allocate" 5 dollars to Agents of Shield on Netflix, does it affect my personal supply of Agents of Shield? Does it affect my personal supply of money?

Your premise for Netflix is that the supply closely matches everybody's preferences... despite the fact that nobody spends their limited money on the content that most closely matches their preferences.

My premise is that by sacrificing your time to watch something 4 times, you are communicating more clearly than by sacrificing roughly nothing "allocating money" to it. Some guy told me that sacrifice is the only way to tell true value. Here's what he said:

Xerographica wrote:Making a sacrifice is how we prove and communicate importance. And knowing the importance of things is necessary because society's resources are limited.

Is he wrong or are you wrong?

Venicilian: wow. Jesus hung around with everyone. boys, girls, rich, poor(mostly), sick, healthy, etc. in fact, i bet he even went up to gay people and tried to heal them so they would be straight.The Parkus Empire: Being serious on NSG is like wearing a suit to a nude beach.New Kereptica: Since power is changed energy over time, an increase in power would mean, in this case, an increase in energy. As energy is equivalent to mass and the density of the government is static, the volume of the government must increase.

Jello Biafra wrote:What if my value of a particular piece of content is $11?

Well... what I'm advocating is essentially crowdfunded advertising. The more valuable some content is, the more people who would watch it. With this in mind I'm sure that plenty of people would be more than happy to pay more than their fair share in order to help promote their favorite content.

Take take this forum for example. The threads are sorted chronologically. Of course it's useful to be able to see which threads have the latest replies. But it would be incredibly useful to be able to also see which threads are the most valuable.

Let's say that we all paid $1/month but we could choose which threads we spent our money on. There would be one page on this forum where you could see all the most valuable threads. You could filter the list to see the most valuable threads that had been created in the past week, month, year or all time.

People are going to want to read the most valuable threads. With this in mind, if there's a thread that you would want more people to read, then you'd clearly have an incentive to spend more than your fair share on that thread. The more money that was spent on that thread, the higher it would be on the list, and the more people who would read it.

We'd prioritize how we spent our limited money in order to help each other prioritize how we spent our limited time.

So your ideal is a market system where everyone has the same amount of money?

If you wanted content to be valued at it's "correct" market value then you would have to charge for each individual episode/movie watched. The thing about this more traditional type of market is that it FORCES us to decide if we value it more or less than its price. With Netflix, I will pay the subscription if the utility derived from everything I can watch in the month is worth more than the price of the subscription.

Now if we could allocate our subscription to various shows, what is my incentive to ensure I allocate it correctly? For example, I might value one show at $3 and another at $7. But what's to stop me allocating all my money to the show I value at more? Because, and here's the critical thing, by allocating the $10 to one show, I don't lose it. I can still get access to both shows, but I might simply decide that I will give all my money to my favorite show despite the fact that I have positive valuations for other shows.

A traditional market has a mechanism inbuilt to ensure that consumers are forced to value a product correctly. Your allocation of funds model doesn't.

Council Communist TG me if you want to chat, especially about economics, you can never have enough discussions on economics.Especially game theory :)

Xerographica wrote:Well... what I'm advocating is essentially crowdfunded advertising. The more valuable some content is, the more people who would watch it. With this in mind I'm sure that plenty of people would be more than happy to pay more than their fair share in order to help promote their favorite content.

Take take this forum for example. The threads are sorted chronologically. Of course it's useful to be able to see which threads have the latest replies. But it would be incredibly useful to be able to also see which threads are the most valuable.

Let's say that we all paid $1/month but we could choose which threads we spent our money on. There would be one page on this forum where you could see all the most valuable threads. You could filter the list to see the most valuable threads that had been created in the past week, month, year or all time.

People are going to want to read the most valuable threads. With this in mind, if there's a thread that you would want more people to read, then you'd clearly have an incentive to spend more than your fair share on that thread. The more money that was spent on that thread, the higher it would be on the list, and the more people who would read it.

We'd prioritize how we spent our limited money in order to help each other prioritize how we spent our limited time.

So your ideal is a market system where everyone has the same amount of money?

That actually probably would be a much better system than we currently have. Problem with the capitalist market is that income affects ability to pay and thus the price you are willing to pay doesn't correlate perfectly with utility/satisfaction gained. Or, as an example, a rich man might be willing to pay more than a poor man for a good, but that doesn't mean the poor man gains less happiness from that good.

Now, I guess this isn't what Xero is proposing, but you brought up an interesting point and I thought I would share my thoughts on it Utility and economics is a favourite topic of mine

Council Communist TG me if you want to chat, especially about economics, you can never have enough discussions on economics.Especially game theory :)

Xerographica wrote:Admittedly though, because Netflix has so many subscribers, how you spent your own fees would be a drop in the bucket.

Indeed, which is why the amount of sacrifice involved is a number so small it would round down to zero on most calculators, and is therefore functionally equivalent to zero.

But TIME sacrificed does not, and time = money.

Consider three ways of allocating votes.

You get more votes the longer you are willing to sit in a chair in a room for hours on end with nothing but nothing to do.

You get more votes the longer you are willing to do the downward-facing dog.

You get more votes the more you pay.

These are all potential methods of measuring intensity of preference. In some ways they are all better than the system we have got, because they all attempt to measure intensity at all, whereas one person-one vote does not. That said, they are all obviously flawed. The first will skew voting to people who don’t have jobs or things they really need to do that keep them from sitting in a boring room doing nothing. The second will skew voting to yoga practitioners. The third will skew voting to rich people. - John Holbo, Selling Votes

Galloism wrote:If I buy 5 oranges for five dollars, or don't buy five oranges for five dollars, does it affect my personal supply of oranges? Does it affect my personal supply of money?

If I "allocate" 5 dollars to Agents of Shield on Netflix, does it affect my personal supply of Agents of Shield? Does it affect my personal supply of money?

Sure, buying 5 oranges for $5 dollars would be somewhat different than spending N5 dollars on Agents of Shield. Oranges are a private good but Agents of Shield, in this context, is a public good. But in both cases you're signaling the value of two things that match your preferences. In both cases you're informing producers about the intensity of your specific preferences.

Right now you believe that it's necessary to inform producers about the intensity of your preferences... but that this info is accurately and effectively transmitted by your viewing/consumption habits. Again, just because you spend so much time consuming this thread really doesn't accurately inform me about the intensity of your preference for it. I know exactly how many words you allocate to this thread but in no way, shape or form does that inform me about how much you value this thread.

If we don't know the value of threads, then how can we expect more valuable ones to be consistently and regularly created? In the absence of the knowledge of thread values, there really won't be a virtuous cycle of value creation.

Galloism wrote:My premise is that by sacrificing your time to watch something 4 times, you are communicating more clearly than by sacrificing roughly nothing "allocating money" to it.

If you watch something 4 times, but don't allocate any fees to it, then I'm going to guess that maybe it's something that does a really good job of putting you to sleep. If you reply to this thread 100 times, but don't allocate any fees to it, then I'm going to guess that you value other threads more highly.

Galloism wrote:Some guy told me that sacrifice is the only way to tell true value. Here's what he said:

Xerographica wrote:Making a sacrifice is how we prove and communicate importance. And knowing the importance of things is necessary because society's resources are limited.

Is he wrong or are you wrong?

Spending your fees has an opportunity cost. You have to throw other things under the bus. So you better endeavor to throw the least valuable things under the bus.

It's certainly the case that replying to you also requires that I throw other things under the bus. And I better hope that I'm throwing the least valuable things under the bus. But spending 5 hours on this thread isn't the same thing as spending $5 dollars... or $10 dollars... or $100 dollars on this thread. Time is money but $1 dollar doesn't necessarily equal 1 minute or 10 minutes.

There's gotta be the case that somebody out there only has 5 minutes and $5 dollars to spare on this thread. Would I be happy to have an additional 5 minutes of life? Sure, of course. I'd say, "Great, thanks, I'd sure like to earn more minutes of life." But that's not possible. It is, however, possible for me to have an additional $5 dollars. And I'd say, "Great, thanks. I'd sure like to earn more money."

If Netflix gave subscribers the option to choose where their fees go, then I'd be telling Netflix, "Please give $5 dollars to that guy. Because... I want to use my $5 dollars to inform him that I love his work. I want to reward him for producing something that I value. I want to empower him to produce even more valuable things. I want to help him compete more resources away from other creators. I want to give him a hi-5 and a hug but that would be logistically difficult not to mention maybe a bit weird and awkward... so I'll settle for giving him $5 dollars instead."

I really don't want Netflix interpreting my viewing habits to determine how to allocate my fees. I don't want Netflix to do any interpretation of my behavior. Netflix doesn't know me. Netflix isn't sitting next time me when I'm watching a show. Netflix can't see how bored or interested or excited I am when I'm watching something. Netflix can't hear how loud I'm laughing or sobbing. Netflix can't see when I fall asleep. Netflix isn't my bff or gf. I mean, not yet at least. Maybe in the future Netflix can be some super cool robot that will hang out with me and know me better than I know myself. It will know when I want something clarified. It will know when I want popcorn. It will know when I want my feet rubbed. It will know when I want to cuddle. It will know when I want to dance. It will dance just like this. I will always want Netflix to control the remote. It will be the remote. And my bff. And my gf. All rolled into one.

But from my perspective I have absolutely no reason to believe that Netflix can spend my money better than I can. All I need from Netflix is to 1. give me access to content and 2. make it really easy for me to give my money to the creators of the best content. Netflix is already meeting my first need... which is great. It would be even better if it also met my second need.

Not biting the hand that feeds us is a no-brainer. But it should also be a no-brainer that we have to do more than not bite the hand that feeds us. If somebody is helping you... then you have to do more than not hurt them. You have to help them help you. It should be a no-brainer that we should nurture the creators of our favorite content.

In this sense, Patreon is superior to Netflix. You can choose which creators you help grow. There's a ridiculously obvious problem with Patreon though. Consider the two assumptions it's based on...

If the first assumption is true and good... then the second assumption has to be false and bad. If Netflix gave us the option to spend our fees on our favorite content... then clearly we wouldn't equally spend our fees on all of a creator's content. And then Netflix's market would be far superior to Patreon's market.

Well... then... I don't equally value every episode in a show. So I should be able to spend my fees on specific episodes? Sure!

We should have the option to provide specific and substantial feedback. We can certainly write a creator and say, "Episode 7 was the best!" This is specific feedback in the sense that you narrowed your feedback down to one episode. But it's not substantial feedback in the sense that you didn't use your money to quantify and prove your appreciation.

And I'm sure that none of you would have any issue with me arguing that everybody should be able to write their favorite creators and use their words to provide specific feedback. But when I argue that everybody should be able to use their money to provide creators with specific and substantial feedback... then all of a sudden there's an issue. What a weird issue. What a weird world.

Xerographica wrote:Well... what I'm advocating is essentially crowdfunded advertising. The more valuable some content is, the more people who would watch it. With this in mind I'm sure that plenty of people would be more than happy to pay more than their fair share in order to help promote their favorite content.

Take take this forum for example. The threads are sorted chronologically. Of course it's useful to be able to see which threads have the latest replies. But it would be incredibly useful to be able to also see which threads are the most valuable.

Let's say that we all paid $1/month but we could choose which threads we spent our money on. There would be one page on this forum where you could see all the most valuable threads. You could filter the list to see the most valuable threads that had been created in the past week, month, year or all time.

People are going to want to read the most valuable threads. With this in mind, if there's a thread that you would want more people to read, then you'd clearly have an incentive to spend more than your fair share on that thread. The more money that was spent on that thread, the higher it would be on the list, and the more people who would read it.

We'd prioritize how we spent our limited money in order to help each other prioritize how we spent our limited time.

So your ideal is a market system where everyone has the same amount of money?

Heh. If Netflix became a market then more people would understand what markets are good for. So Amazon Kindle Unlimited (AKU) would also become a market. So would Amazon Prime (AP). And then Amazon and lots of people would see the obvious benefit of combining AKU and AP into one market with books and shows/movies. And then when it's obviously beneficial to have a market with books and shows/movies... it would be obviously beneficial to include songs and software and video games and photos and articles and forum threads.

Once it's obviously beneficial to have a market for digital goods... and digital goods are essentially treated like public goods.... then it will be obviously beneficial to have a market in the public sector. It will be obviously beneficial to move digital goods into the public sector. Everybody will be able to read every book and watch every movie for free. You'll be able to use your tax dollars to support your favorite creators. And obviously people don't pay the same amount of taxes.

So no. My ideal system is not a market system where everyone has the same amount of money. Netflix creating a market is just the first shot on a super slippery slope to a seriously superior scene. It's the trailer for a far better world.

Galloism wrote:Indeed, which is why the amount of sacrifice involved is a number so small it would round down to zero on most calculators, and is therefore functionally equivalent to zero.

But TIME sacrificed does not, and time = money.

Consider three ways of allocating votes.

You get more votes the longer you are willing to sit in a chair in a room for hours on end with nothing but nothing to do.

You get more votes the longer you are willing to do the downward-facing dog.

You get more votes the more you pay.

These are all potential methods of measuring intensity of preference. In some ways they are all better than the system we have got, because they all attempt to measure intensity at all, whereas one person-one vote does not. That said, they are all obviously flawed. The first will skew voting to people who don’t have jobs or things they really need to do that keep them from sitting in a boring room doing nothing. The second will skew voting to yoga practitioners. The third will skew voting to rich people. - John Holbo, Selling Votes

Yes, all systems, including using money, are flawed. We know this.

Sure, buying 5 oranges for $5 dollars would be somewhat different than spending N5 dollars on Agents of Shield.

No shit. Maybe that's what I have been saying.

Oranges are a private good but Agents of Shield, in this context, is a public good.

Actually, no. It's a club good. You really need to learn your economics terms and what they mean if you're going to pontificate on economics.

But in both cases you're signaling the value of two things that match your preferences. In both cases you're informing producers about the intensity of your specific preferences.

Probably not, really. Without sacrifice, which your system for netflix completely lacks, there's little motivation for people to make choices, as they don't actually HAVE to make choices, and so what you get will likely be junk data.

IE, $10 to whatever I'm watching this week.

Right now you believe that it's necessary to inform producers about the intensity of your preferences...

Actually, I don't, I'm merely using your arguments and precepts to prove how your idea violates even your own principles.

but that this info is accurately and effectively transmitted by your viewing/consumption habits.

More accurate than allocating cash, sure, given the allocation of cash requires no sacrifice. Some guy told me that was important. Do you know him? A guy named Xerographica?

Again, just because you spend so much time consuming this thread really doesn't accurately inform me about the intensity of your preference for it.

Oh, I love your threads. Watching you get smacked down over and over again and trying to twist yourself into a pretzel trying to defend your internally inconsistent ideas is great entertainment. It's in the running to be one the funniest gags on NSG, although you'll have a hard time catching up to the wheelchair incident.

I know exactly how many words you allocate to this thread but in no way, shape or form does that inform me about how much you value this thread.

I value your threads lots, but not for the reason you probably want. Sort of like watching Snakes on a Plane. That was a movie I valued highly, because it was so bad it was unintentionally hilarious.

If we don't know the value of threads, then how can we expect more valuable ones to be consistently and regularly created? In the absence of the knowledge of thread values, there really won't be a virtuous cycle of value creation.

Seems to be working fine. You keep coming back to say ridiculous things and I keep laughing and laughing and laughing.

If you watch something 4 times, but don't allocate any fees to it, then I'm going to guess that maybe it's something that does a really good job of putting you to sleep.

A fair point, although that's a certain kind of value. People buy ambien all the time.

If you reply to this thread 100 times, but don't allocate any fees to it, then I'm going to guess that you value other threads more highly.

Eh, that's not a fair assumption. I'm not likely to allocate any fees of any kind to any thread, and if you put a $1 month fee on me, I'm likely to leave entirely or allocate money only to my wife's threads, and her to mine. This is because we're rational actors.

Spending your fees has an opportunity cost.

ONLY the time you spend allocating. Which, of course, is also spent watching movies. You aren't $10 richer because you didn't allocate, or $10 poorer because you did. You've incurred no monetary sacrifice.

You have to throw other things under the bus. So you better endeavor to throw the least valuable things under the bus.

No, you don't, because you still have access to those things. If you threw them under the bus, you couldn't watch them. As it is, you can continue to watch them even if you don't fund them, so there's no sacrifice to not funding them.

Some guy told me that was important.

It's certainly the case that replying to you also requires that I throw other things under the bus. And I better hope that I'm throwing the least valuable things under the bus. But spending 5 hours on this thread isn't the same thing as spending $5 dollars... or $10 dollars... or $100 dollars on this thread. Time is money but $1 dollar doesn't necessarily equal 1 minute or 10 minutes.

No, it equals a minimum of $7.25 an hour if you live in the US, depending on how much you get paid. So 5 hours is a minimum of $36.25, more if your time is worth more.

I really don't want Netflix interpreting my viewing habits to determine how to allocate my fees. I don't want Netflix to do any interpretation of my behavior. Netflix doesn't know me. Netflix isn't sitting next time me when I'm watching a show. Netflix can't see how bored or interested or excited I am when I'm watching something. Netflix can't hear how loud I'm laughing or sobbing. Netflix can't see when I fall asleep. Netflix isn't my bff or gf. I mean, not yet at least. Maybe in the future Netflix can be some super cool robot that will hang out with me and know me better than I know myself. It will know when I want something clarified. It will know when I want popcorn. It will know when I want my feet rubbed. It will know when I want to cuddle. It will know when I want to dance.

If Netflix does not interpretation of your behavior, than there's no interpretation possible of the $5 either. That, itself, requires an interpretation.

Also, provide no significant probative information. It would be more probative to see how much time a person spent allocating their fees than it would be the allocation itself.

And the rest was just more nonsense, other than the inexplicable praise of patreon, which is approximately the most inefficient thing ever. People often fund vaporware on patreon, over and over, and get nothing delivered.

Last edited by Galloism on Sat Apr 08, 2017 11:05 am, edited 2 times in total.

Venicilian: wow. Jesus hung around with everyone. boys, girls, rich, poor(mostly), sick, healthy, etc. in fact, i bet he even went up to gay people and tried to heal them so they would be straight.The Parkus Empire: Being serious on NSG is like wearing a suit to a nude beach.New Kereptica: Since power is changed energy over time, an increase in power would mean, in this case, an increase in energy. As energy is equivalent to mass and the density of the government is static, the volume of the government must increase.

And the rest was just more nonsense, other than the inexplicable praise of patreon, which is approximately the most inefficient thing ever. People often fund vaporware on patreon, over and over, and get nothing delivered.

And the rest was just more nonsense, other than the inexplicable praise of patreon, which is approximately the most inefficient thing ever. People often fund vaporware on patreon, over and over, and get nothing delivered.

How does it compare to other crowdfunding sites?

For products, pretty much the same.

For "I have cancer please help me" not so much, as no one was expecting a product delivered anyway. Although, that type of thing is subject to other scammers.

Venicilian: wow. Jesus hung around with everyone. boys, girls, rich, poor(mostly), sick, healthy, etc. in fact, i bet he even went up to gay people and tried to heal them so they would be straight.The Parkus Empire: Being serious on NSG is like wearing a suit to a nude beach.New Kereptica: Since power is changed energy over time, an increase in power would mean, in this case, an increase in energy. As energy is equivalent to mass and the density of the government is static, the volume of the government must increase.

Chestaan wrote:If you wanted content to be valued at it's "correct" market value then you would have to charge for each individual episode/movie watched. The thing about this more traditional type of market is that it FORCES us to decide if we value it more or less than its price. With Netflix, I will pay the subscription if the utility derived from everything I can watch in the month is worth more than the price of the subscription.

But how can you truly know the value of a movie before you watch it?

Chestaan wrote:Now if we could allocate our subscription to various shows, what is my incentive to ensure I allocate it correctly? For example, I might value one show at $3 and another at $7. But what's to stop me allocating all my money to the show I value at more? Because, and here's the critical thing, by allocating the $10 to one show, I don't lose it. I can still get access to both shows, but I might simply decide that I will give all my money to my favorite show despite the fact that I have positive valuations for other shows.

You clearly realize that how you spend your fees won't have any effect on the present supply of content. So why spend $10 on a show that you only value at $7?

Also, with the current system... how many of your dollars does Netflix spend on the show that you value at $7 dollars? If Netflix spends $10 or $4 dollars on a show that you value at $7 dollars then there wouldn't be any improvement to allowing you to spend your fees. If Netflix spends anything between $10 and $4 dollars on a show that you value at $7 dollars... then allowing you to spend your fees would make you worse off. But how in the world would Netflix know that you value the show at $7 dollars?

You're the only one who can truly know how much you value things. Even if you can choose how you spend your Netflix fees, and you spend $7 dollars on a show, there's no way that I can truly know how closely your payment matches your valuation. Only you can know how closely your payment matches your valuation. Only you can know the degree to which you're misleading and misinforming producers. Only you can know whether you perceive it's worth it to deceive beneficial producers to any degree.

Chestaan wrote:A traditional market has a mechanism inbuilt to ensure that consumers are forced to value a product correctly. Your allocation of funds model doesn't.

Consumer surplus and shortage (buyer's remorse) means that the amount of money that consumers spend on things rarely accurately communicates their true valuation.

Galloism wrote:Probably not, really. Without sacrifice, which your system for netflix completely lacks, there's little motivation for people to make choices, as they don't actually HAVE to make choices, and so what you get will likely be junk data.

I really enjoyed the Korean comedy "The Sound of Your Heart" on Netflix. Jo Seok is the creator. If I donated $5 dollars to him... would you consider this to be a sacrifice?

Galloism wrote:Probably not, really. Without sacrifice, which your system for netflix completely lacks, there's little motivation for people to make choices, as they don't actually HAVE to make choices, and so what you get will likely be junk data.

I really enjoyed the Korean comedy "The Sound of Your Heart" on Netflix. Jo Seok is the creator. If I donated $5 dollars to him... would you consider this to be a sacrifice?

If you couldn't use the $5 for any personal good, and could only allocate that $5 to other films which you could also consume whether or not you paid the $5?

No.

If Bill Gates gave you a credit card and said "have fun" and you went shopping with it, would buying things with Bill Gates money be a sacrifice for you?

Venicilian: wow. Jesus hung around with everyone. boys, girls, rich, poor(mostly), sick, healthy, etc. in fact, i bet he even went up to gay people and tried to heal them so they would be straight.The Parkus Empire: Being serious on NSG is like wearing a suit to a nude beach.New Kereptica: Since power is changed energy over time, an increase in power would mean, in this case, an increase in energy. As energy is equivalent to mass and the density of the government is static, the volume of the government must increase.

"If I would like to watch goodness, sanity, God and logic being fucked I would watch Japanese porn." -Nightkill the Emperor"This thread makes me wish I was a moron so that I wouldn't have to comprehend how stupid the topic is." -The Empire of Pretantia

Head of State: HM King LouisHead of Government: The Rt. Hon. James O'Dell MP, Prime MinisterAmbassador to the World Assembly: HE Sir John Ross "J.R." Ewing II, Bt.

Galloism wrote:If you couldn't use the $5 for any personal good, and could only allocate that $5 to other films which you could also consume whether or not you paid the $5?

No.

Is paying taxes a sacrifice?

Paying taxes, yes. That means less money in your pocket to use whatever you want for yourself.

Allocating those taxes between programs when you can't use them for anything besides other government programs? No, not appreciably anyway.

Again: any "personal sacrifice" those allocations would involve would be less than a rounding error.

Venicilian: wow. Jesus hung around with everyone. boys, girls, rich, poor(mostly), sick, healthy, etc. in fact, i bet he even went up to gay people and tried to heal them so they would be straight.The Parkus Empire: Being serious on NSG is like wearing a suit to a nude beach.New Kereptica: Since power is changed energy over time, an increase in power would mean, in this case, an increase in energy. As energy is equivalent to mass and the density of the government is static, the volume of the government must increase.

Galloism wrote:Paying taxes, yes. That means less money in your pocket to use whatever you want for yourself.

Allocating those taxes between programs when you can't use them for anything besides other government programs? No, not appreciably anyway.

Again: any "personal sacrifice" those allocations would involve would be less than a rounding error.

So it's a sacrifice when you pay for a bundle but it's not a sacrifice when you pay for a specific item in the bundle?

It's not a sacrifice to "allocate" a bundle amount among items in that bundle if you have to pay the bundle amount regardless, and get the full bundle regardless.

Thought experiment:

You buy my tax services, but you get to allocate whether I spend the money on getting a hitch for my Tesla or buy more video games. You won't get to drive nor ride in or even see the Tesla nor use it to tow anything, nor will you get to play any of my video games. Is it a sacrifice to choose one or the other? What was the sacrifice? How were you personally negatively or positively affected by your choice?

Last edited by Galloism on Sat Apr 08, 2017 7:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Venicilian: wow. Jesus hung around with everyone. boys, girls, rich, poor(mostly), sick, healthy, etc. in fact, i bet he even went up to gay people and tried to heal them so they would be straight.The Parkus Empire: Being serious on NSG is like wearing a suit to a nude beach.New Kereptica: Since power is changed energy over time, an increase in power would mean, in this case, an increase in energy. As energy is equivalent to mass and the density of the government is static, the volume of the government must increase.

"If I would like to watch goodness, sanity, God and logic being fucked I would watch Japanese porn." -Nightkill the Emperor"This thread makes me wish I was a moron so that I wouldn't have to comprehend how stupid the topic is." -The Empire of Pretantia

Head of State: HM King LouisHead of Government: The Rt. Hon. James O'Dell MP, Prime MinisterAmbassador to the World Assembly: HE Sir John Ross "J.R." Ewing II, Bt.

Xerographica wrote:So it's a sacrifice when you pay for a bundle but it's not a sacrifice when you pay for a specific item in the bundle?

It's not a sacrifice to "allocate" a bundle amount among items in that bundle if you have to pay the bundle amount regardless, and get the full bundle regardless.

Thought experiment:

You buy my tax services, but you get to allocate whether I spend the money on getting a hitch for my Tesla or buy more video games. You won't get to drive nor ride in or even see the Tesla nor use it to tow anything, nor will you get to play any of my video games. Is it a sacrifice to choose one or the other? What was the sacrifice? How were you personally negatively or positively affected by your choice?

It's not the equivalent because there's no middleman.

Netflix is the middleman. With the current system, Netflix decides how to divide my money among all the different creators. But I really don't need Netflix to decide how to divide my money among all the different creators. I'm perfectly capable of making this decision myself. Just like how I'm perfectly capable of going to the grocery store and deciding for myself how to divide my money among all the different producers. Just like I'm perfectly capable of going to Home Dept and deciding for myself how to divide my money among all the different producers. Just like I'm perfectly capable of going to Target and deciding for myself how to divide my money among all the different producers. Just like I'm perfectly capable of going to a flea market and deciding for myself how to divide my money among all the different sellers.

And again, yeah, a movie isn't exactly the same type of good as some oranges. But this doesn't at all change the necessity or relevance of markets. When there are different products/producers... it's absolutely necessary for me to decide for myself how I spend my limited money. Because Target and Home Depot and Vons and the flea market facilitator are not mind-readers. They can't possibly divine how much I'm willing to pay for any given product at any given time.

You agree that it matters how much I'm willing to pay for oranges. But you disagree that it matters how much I'm willing to pay for a documentary about oranges.

You agree that it matters how much society values oranges. But you disagree that it matters how much society values a documentary about oranges.

You agree that it matters what the demand is for oranges. But you disagree that it matters what the demand is for a documentary about oranges.

Why do you think that it matters what the demand is for oranges? From my perspective, it matters because we don't want too many or too few of society's limited resources being used to produce oranges. We really don't want there to be a surplus or shortage of oranges. But do we want there to be a surplus or a shortage of documentaries about oranges? Of course not. But the only way that we can ensure that there isn't a surplus or a shortage of documentaries about oranges is if we actually know what the demand is for documentaries about oranges.

Therefore, Netflix subscribers should have the option to decide for themselves how many of their fees they are willing to spend on documentaries about oranges. In other words, Netflix should be a market. Just like Vons, Target, Home Depot and flea markets are all markets.

The fact that Netflix is not a market is proof that people don't know what markets are good for.

Galloism wrote:It's not a sacrifice to "allocate" a bundle amount among items in that bundle if you have to pay the bundle amount regardless, and get the full bundle regardless.

Thought experiment:

You buy my tax services, but you get to allocate whether I spend the money on getting a hitch for my Tesla or buy more video games. You won't get to drive nor ride in or even see the Tesla nor use it to tow anything, nor will you get to play any of my video games. Is it a sacrifice to choose one or the other? What was the sacrifice? How were you personally negatively or positively affected by your choice?

Venicilian: wow. Jesus hung around with everyone. boys, girls, rich, poor(mostly), sick, healthy, etc. in fact, i bet he even went up to gay people and tried to heal them so they would be straight.The Parkus Empire: Being serious on NSG is like wearing a suit to a nude beach.New Kereptica: Since power is changed energy over time, an increase in power would mean, in this case, an increase in energy. As energy is equivalent to mass and the density of the government is static, the volume of the government must increase.